That looks much, much better. What are you using for noise removal? I
have tried Define, Noise Ninja, Noiseware, and Neat Image and they all
leave too many artifacts for me.
The original Kodachrome is dark. I have uploaded a straight, untouched
scan here: http://www.pbase.com/tinamanley/image/162389186 If you hit
Original, you can see it huge.
I appreciate your help.
Tina
On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 12:17 AM, Moose <olymoose@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 1/21/2016 12:33 PM, Tina Manley wrote:
>
>> PESO:
>>
>> A Kaqchiquel boy selling straw baskets in Panajachel.
>>
>> http://www.pbase.com/image/162385989
>>
>
> I'm mysterified by this series. All good to wonderful subjects,
> composition, etc. All shot using Kodachrome 64 in 1990. Between Kodak QC in
> manufacture and processing, Kodachrome was almost absolutely reliable and
> consistent.
>
> And yet, on the tech side ...
>
> The Gang has glorious skin tones. I feel like I could reach out and touch
> those faces, knowing ahead of time just how they would feel. (Leaving aside
> the reaction of boys that age to such a thing.) Yes, there is a little
> grain, but it's quite modest doesn't detract. Gang II and the Cornfield
> aren't quite as luscious, but still very nice.
>
> Then comes Natalia. Her nose and her face, on the viewer's right, are
> similarly lovely. But her forehead and the other side are rough and
> slightly blotchy looking. Such a wonderful pose of a lovely girl, with her
> face looking half like sandpaper. Then almost all of Armando's skin looks
> like that and now the background grain is much more pronounced and rougher
> looking that the earlier ones. These look like a couple of the same kids
> that were in the "Gang" shots, no?
>
> Then, in Church, we have good skin again, except maybe for the kid on the
> far right. Therein may lie a tale? Todo is back to rough skin and
> background, as, to a slightly lesser extent is the straw hat.
>
> Is this all a result of digital processing? If we saw a show of these
> slides projected, would the areas that I wonder about all be in pretty deep
> shadow, and they've been pulled up through scanning and/or post scan
> processing? Have some been cropped and enlarged much more than others?
>
> These are all part of a selection of some of the finest or your work that
> I've seen, and I hate to see such wonderful images spoiled, at least to my
> eye, by correctable technical flaws. <
> http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/Others/Manley/Natalia.htm>
>
> Smooth Moose ;-)
>
> --
> What if the Hokey Pokey *IS* what it's all about?
> --
> _________________________________________________________________
> Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
> Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
> Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
>
>
--
Tina Manley
http://
<http://t.sidekickopen35.com/e1t/c/5/f18dQhb0S7lC8dDMPbW2n0x6l2B9nMJN7t5XYgfmKYPW4WzBHl3Mx_9dW3LqWkM56dQ1Jf7P8b5b02?t=http%3A%2F%2Ftina-manley.artistwebsites.com%2F&si=6038418186567680&pi=00343ce4-454b-413c-92c4-a6653613ebbc>
www.tinamanley.com
http://tina-manley.artistwebsites.com/
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|